| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 法律學研究所 === 94 === The perpetual problem of “what is Law” is always asked by the students, the professors, even the philosophers, but no real answer was or is made. The legal positivist like John Austin would declare “laws properly so called are commands of sovereign”, as to another hand, the supporters of theory of natural law would make a completely opposite claim. What shall we do or which side should we believe?
In this essay, from the aspect of the contrast between “it ought to be” and “it is”, the history of theory of natural law and legal positivism is tracked down in order to try to figure out the problem of the unlawful laws which the Nazi had made and caused a terrible disaster. Because the result is not so content, so the thought of Plato is reseached as to find out if there would be something that is illuminating.
The contents of all chapters of this essay could be digested as follows:
In chapter one, as an introduction, it explains the reason that why the essay is written and how it is finished.
In chapter two, it tracks down the history of theory of natural law and legal positivism, and shows a horrible instance that caused a catastrophe which neither legal positivism nor theory of natural law could undo.
In chapter three, it refers the thought background of Plato including his life and the conditions of contemporary Greek that affected the behaviour and development of Plato.
In chapter four, it discusses the thought of Plato such as the theories of form, justice, and legislation with further eyes on his ‘The Ruplic’, ‘Statesman’, and ‘The Laws’.
In chapter five, some viewpoints are discussed in advance in order to conclude what is in question. And after that, a temporary conclusion is made.
|
|---|
